Market Orientation: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
by
Colin Jones (*)
And
Dr Rob Hecker
Colin Jones Dr Rob Hecker
University of Tasmania University of Tasmania School of Management School of Management
PO Box 152-16 PO Box 152-16
Sandy Bay Sandy Bay
Tasmania 7005 Tasmania 7005
Australia Australia
phone: +61 (0) 3 6226 2826 phone: +61 (0) 3 6226 1774
fax: +61 (0) 3 6226 2808 fax: +61 (0) 3 6226 2808
cdjones@postoffice.utas.edu.au Rob.Hecker@utas.edu.au
(*) = Contact Author
Abstract. The concept of a market orientation it is not universally accepted to be
beneficial despite strong support for its status as an intangible resource supportive of a
competitive advantage. Research on market orientation is largely quantitatively based
focussing on justifying the performance link rather than determining what actually is a market
orientation. This paper contends that in its current state, market orientation research is trapped
in a quantitatively-driven research paradigm, unable to investigate and translate what market
orientation is and how it can be applied.
It is suggested an over reliance upon quantitative methods has largely limited research
to identifying the relative degree of market orientation for a specific entity within a sample at
the expense of expanding our understanding of the construct. A qualitative case study
approach potentially offers researchers a means through which to respond to the challenge of
Gable’s (1995) desired research agenda. Three possible case study approaches are identified;
firstly, pattern matching (identify market orientation), secondly, the industrial networks
approach (to isolate and explain market orientation), and lastly, action research (to
demonstrate the value of future market orientation research).
Introduction
As an extension to one of marketing’s most enduring tenets, the marketing concept, the
construct of a market orientation is still surrounded by mystery and scepticism despite its
purported positive influence on firm performance. Despite strong support from recent
strategic management literature regarding its status as an intangible resource supportive of a
competitive advantage, it is not universally accepted to be beneficial. Academic research on
market orientation is largely quantitatively based focussing on justifying the performance link
rather than determining what actually is a market orientation. This paper contends that in its
current state, market orientation research is trapped in a quantitatively-driven research
paradigm, unable to investigate and translate what market orientation is and how it can be
applied. As a consequence, it is not clear from the literature how a single firm would proceed
crown’ textbook status awarded to market orientation. Out of sight from current market
orientation research exist a myriad of complex processes, exchanges and interactions that are
embedded in networks of knowledge. Currently, the received view appears to almost
deliberately avoid the richness of such knowledge as if fearful of what might be seen or heard,
despite its obvious relevance to market orientation research.
During the last decade, academics have recognised the importance of market
orientation theory, but differed in their approaches to research. The contributions of Shapiro
(1988), Kohli and Jaworski (1990), Narver and Slater (1990) and Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar
(1993) are considered the most influential. They argue that market orientation refers to
deliberate actions that generate strategic knowledge of customers, competitors and markets,
thus ensuring customer needs are recognised and met. With few exceptions (e.g., Greenly
1995), the relationship between market orientation and performance has been claimed to be
positive in all types of markets (e.g., Naidu and Narayana 1991; Pelham and Wilson 1996;
Slater and Narver 1994; Wrenn, LaTour and Calder 1994). Market orientation has also been
cited as a source of ‘positional advantage’ (Hult and Ketchen 2001), ‘organisational learning’
(Slater and Narver 1995) and ‘product innovation’ (Baker and Sinkula 2002). It is widely
accepted that a firm’s market orientation can also be a firm’s culture (e.g., Deshpandé and
Farley 1997; Narver and Slater 1990; Webster 1994). This is due to the development of
superior marketing throughout the firm’s functional areas via developing skills and
knowledge (Narver, Slater and Tietje 1998). Despite a growing academic support and a
growing body of empirical evidence, some remain opposed to the notion that market
orientation exists (Henderson 1998), while others remain sceptical about construct issues of
operationalization and measurement (e.g. Wensley 1995; Wrenn 1997). The definition by
Hunt and Morgan (1995) is reflective of both the early contributors (e.g. Deshpandé and
Webster 1989; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990) and market orientation’s
status as a firm resource. Hunt and Morgan define a firm’s market orientation as:
strategy recognition, understanding, creation, selection, implementation, and modification (p. 11).
Throughout the remainder of this paper, it is posited that several aspects of current
market orientation research are limited by the mainstream use of quantitative research
methods. These issues, both problematic and opportunity laden, are discussed with a view of
identifying complementary issues that might advance a qualitative approach to market
orientation research. The following discussion canvasses; 1) existing measurement scales; 2)
the quasi-acceptance of ‘intangible resource’ status; 3) construct identification; 4) inadequate
appraisal of the ‘organisational learning’ construct; and 5) the influence of time, age, size and
competitor effects. The aim of this discussion is to highlight issues that left unresolved will
remain detrimental to future research efforts to establish the importance of the market
orientation concept.
Existing measurement of the market orientation construct
The most popular form of market orientation measurement to date has been
self-administered questionnaires completed by firm management. The most notable market
orientation scales used are the MARKOR (Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar 1993) and MKTOR
(Narver and Slater 1990) which are also often adapted. However, there is much discourse as
to the development of market orientation theory through the use of both scales and
adaptations derived from their foundations (e.g., Caruana 1999; Farrell and Oczkowski 1997;
Gable 1995; Gauzente 1999; Wrenn 1997). Gable (1995) using Churchill’s (1979) framework
for scale construction found the MARKOR scale to have serious reliability and validity flaws.
The area of most concern is the absence of consumers and channel members (suppliers and
resellers) throughout the scale construction. Similar criticisms have been directed at the
MKTOR scale (Caruana 1999; Siguaw and Diamantopoulos 1995) due to the dominance
(overlap) of the ‘customer orientation’ dimension over others (e.g., competitor orientation and
profitability). The work of Deshpandé, Farley and Webster (1993) provides an insightful
Deshpandé, Farley and Webster (1993) applied both quantitative and qualitative
methods to the firm and key customers to measure the firm’s customer orientation, a
dominant dimension of all market orientation scales. This approach is consistent with
Moriarty and Bateson’s (1982) view that more than one key informant is required to develop
reliable measures of organizational constructs. Through the use of a relatively small sample
(50 firms) and personal interviews, a significant discrepancy was observed between
firm-reported and customer-firm-reported perceptions of ‘customer orientation’. They suggest that
self-administered market orientation questionnaires may not accurately record the firm’s customer
orientation, and therefore may produce a sub-optimal research method. Disappointingly, the
further use of triangulation to obtain customer and supplier evaluations that may identify
possible ‘reality-perception’ market orientation gaps has not been adopted. Inclusion of other
respondents may also highlight other methodological concerns, such as the use of ‘scenario’
based item statements (MARKOR) that potentially distort the temporal parameters associated
with the measured firm behaviours (Gauzente 1999).
It is proposed that the accuracy of mainstream market orientation scales is presently
difficult to ascertain due to their past construction and application. Gable (1995:374), with
reference to the MARKOR scale, pessimistically states it is “a scale published in the
discipline’s premiere methodological journal and thus likely to be (blindly) employed by
future researchers”. There clearly appears an opportunity, and a need, to advance the
development of market orientation research through qualitative methods that examine the role
of customer, supplier, and employees, as well as that of the individual firm. That strategy and
marketing researchers now concur that market orientation is indeed an important intangible
resource (e.g., Day 1994; Hunt and Morgan 1995; Langerak and Commandeur 1998;
Olavrrieta and Friedmann 1999) provides both the opportunity and the need to examine past
and future research methods. The proposed influence of market orientation on developing a
sustainable competitive advantage is now of significant interest to strategy researchers. As
such, the new ‘intangible resource’ status also introduces strategic management based
Strategic management methodologies
Research methodologies used within strategic management research have continued to
evolve during the development of the discipline. The early contributions of Ansoff (1965) and
Andrews (1971) relied upon qualitative research methods to pursue their primary objective of
identifying and developing ‘best practises’ for existing and future business managers.
In-depth case studies of single firms or industries were considered the most appropriate
methodology to observe, understand and explain the inherent characteristics of firm-held
resource capabilities (Hoskisson et al. 1999). However, the imposing influence of economics
theory and method brought more deductive, large-scale statistical analysis rather than
inductive case studies. The economists’ rational-empirical industrial organisation (I/O) based
approach resulted in the ‘industry’ as the primary unit of analysis, rather than the ‘individual’
firm (Bain 1968). Throughout this period Hoskisson et al., (1999:2) state that “As the field
embraced I/O economics, it began to emphasize scientific generalizations based on study of
broader sets of firms. Additionally, strategy researchers increasingly employed multivariate
statistical tools (e.g., multiple regression and cluster analysis), with large samples primarily
collected from secondary sources to test theory”.
The popularity of the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Barney 1986; Wernerfelt
1984) reintroduced an emphasis on the firm’s internal environment, and also the use of more
qualitative research methods. Hoskisson et al. (1999:13) note that the RBV of the firm
“addresses the fundamental question of why firms are different and how firms achieve and
sustain competitive advantage”. In doing so, strategic management research reconnected to
the pioneering ideas of Penrose (1959) that a firm’s unique character is determined by the
heterogeneity of its productive resources. However, such distinctive bundles of resources,
while potentially valuable, rare, inimitable and intangible in nature, are also more difficult to
measure (Godfrey and Hill 1995). Hence, the call for the adoption of case study
approaches. It is argued that such an approach, a fine-grained analysis of firm resources, will
provide optimal examination of firm idiosyncrasies.
Market orientation’s quasi-acceptance of ‘intangible resource’ status
The intangible resource ‘status’ of market orientation reflects its influence on the
effective/efficient production of market offerings that are valued by targeted market segments
(Hunt and Morgan 1995). That market orientation is potentially a source of competitive
advantage is premised on a market orientation being valuable, rare (amongst competitors),
inimitable and non-substitutable.
Firstly, as previously noted, market orientation has been claimed to related positively to
performance in all types of markets (e.g., Naidu and Narayana 1991; Pelham and Wilson
1996; Slater and Narver 1994; Wrenn, LaTour and Calder 1994). Secondly, the rarity of
market orientation is demonstrated through its identification as an important determinate of
industry profitability (Narver and Slater 1990). Thirdly, market orientation has several areas
of inimitability. A firm’s market orientation is developed over time through complex social
interactions, resulting in time compression diseconomies (Dierickx and Cool 1989) and causal
ambiguity (Reed and Defillippi 1990). As a result, it is difficult to interpret the link between
the resources and the competitive advantage. Lastly, market orientation is widely viewed as a
firm culture (Narver, Slater and Tietje, 1998:243) through which members “continuously
contribute skills and knowledge to creating value for customers”. As such, a firm’s market
orientation (culture) is not substitutable through strategy change, as it is a primary driver of
strategy.
Clearly, the market orientation construct has received credibility through its acceptance
as a source of competitive advantage within strategy literature. However, qualitative research
methods are rarely used to investigate, measure and explain the influence of market
orientation. Consequently, the plethora of research articles produced throughout the 1990s
with regards to the market orientation/ performance relationship, the validity of current
exclusively on survey data from large samples. That such approaches can analyse the nature
and integration of intangible resources that are supportive of a competitive advantage remains
questionable (e.g., Grant 1996; Powell and Dent-Micallef 1997; Rouse and Daellenbach
1999).
Observing the unobservable
Rouse and Daellenbach (1999) argue that research focused on intangible resources and
performed from outside an organisation is less precise than research performed from within
organisations. Using organisation culture as a possible source of sustainable competitive
advantage, their methodological perspectives therefore are relevant to market orientation
research. Rouse and Daellenbach contend that “sustainable advantages are organizational in
origin, tacit, highly inimitable, socially complex, probably synergistic, embedded in process
and often driven by culture” (p. 489). This view is consistent with Hunt and Morgan’s (1995)
explanation of market orientation as a source of a firm’s comparative advantage in resources.
The assertion is that without prior understanding of the elements/ behaviours and
organisational processes that comprise a firm’s market orientation, its measurement will be
sub-optimal.
The use of fieldwork to gain in-depth knowledge and understanding of a firm’s culture
and its processes would appear prudent to the discovery of construct properties, properties
that may be unidentifiable by the received view, but essential to the construct’s value. Wrenn
(1997:40) states that “when we seek to measure the properties of a construct we are seeking to
obtain a relationship between the characteristics of the number system employed and the
characteristics of the property to be measured”. When there is a fit between the empirical
relational system and the numerical relational system, a good measure of a construct is
achieved (Anderson, Basilevsky and Hum 1983). However, where the theory related to the
construct is ambiguous, as is suggested regarding the dimensions of market orientation (e.g.,
Gable 1995; Hunt and Morgan 1995), then the arithmetic performed on our survey data is
MARKOR and MKTOR market orientation measurements are the behaviours associated with
higher-order (generative) learning. Neither the MARKOR or MKTOR scales include item
statements capable of investigating the willingness of firms to question long-held assumptions
related to their goals, customers, competitors, core competencies and strategies.
Organizational learning, the assumed or missing link?
That higher-order learning is an outcome of market orientation, separate to, or an
inclusive process through which firms convert information into the knowledge that guide’s
strategy development is not resolved by the extant literature. Slater and Narver (1995:67)
state that “market orientation is the principle cultural foundation of the learning organization”.
Slater and Narver (1998) argue that market oriented firms are more likely to be generative
learners through the need to use techniques that identify customers’ latent needs. Further,
Slater (2001:232) predicts that without increased market-sensing capabilities, or a “second
generation market orientation”, a “traditional market orientation” is unlikely to yield a
competitive advantage. The suggestion appears to be that market oriented behaviours (the
gathering, disseminating and strategic transformation of intelligence into knowledge) are
reliant upon generative learning processes to transform intelligence into valuable knowledge.
However, the Narver and Slater (1990) market orientation scale does not include items related
to the firm’s ‘open-mindedness’, or the propensity to challenge past assumptions. As such,
there appears a leap of faith within the extant literature regarding the actual learning processes
engaged in by market oriented firms.
With reference to organizational learning and market orientation, Baker and Sinkula
(2002:8) cast market orientation as a separate construct that “reflects the quantity of a firm’s
market information processing activities and the weight that these activities have on the
strategic planning process. It does not reflect the quality of a firm’s market information
processing activity”. This view is consistent with assertions that the presence of a market
orientation alone will not guarantee higher-order learning processes through which optimal
central to organizational learning is that of absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal 1990).
Cohen and Levinthal observe the importance of prior knowledge to assist the firm recognize
the value of new information. They also note the difficulties of successfully acquiring and
transforming information into valuable knowledge from novel domains within which little if
any prior knowledge is held. Again, the current received view does little to decipher the
sources of, and intended use of, the information gathered or the firm’s sharing activities.
Consequently, existing market orientation scales are unlikely to inform the measurer of the
nature of learning processes (or type of market orientation) within the firm, or what levels of
prior knowledge are held.
In declaring that a firm’s market orientation can be identified as either low or high
dependent upon the relative position of its score relative to the sample’s median, Narver,
Slater and Tietje (1998) assume the use of a measurement tool capable of identifying all the
construct’s properties. Higher-order learning behaviours would seem essential to an effective
market orientation but absent both from investigation and therefore measurement in the
MARKOR and MKTOR scales. This leaves open the possibility that researchers may
conclude firms located in the upper half of the scores have adequate knowledge creating
processes. Such assumptions also ignore other important factors that impact upon the
development and value of market-oriented behaviours.
The influence of time on the measurement of market orientation
Within the RBV of the firm and its methodological frameworks, awareness of temporal
and firm-specific characteristics are present. The inclusion of time and firm-specific
characteristics allows researchers to remove the assumption that the particular parameters of a
model “are stable across firms and over time” (Bowen and Wiersema 1999:625). The
advancement of market orientation theory would also appear dependent upon the
accommodation of firm history as a variable factor. That market orientation is viewed from a
cultural perspective (Narver, Slater and Tietje 1998), suggests the need to examine the
three time perspectives; 1) time as length; 2) time as age; and 3) time as an historical period
when conducting market orientation research.
Firstly, a firm culture that is representative of market-oriented behaviours is developed
over time. The relationship between firm performance and market orientation must account
for lagged effects. That a linear relationship exists between the degree of market orientation
and the degree of performance is not proven (Dreher 1994). A non-linear performance-market
orientation relationship may provide moments in time when cumulative levels of market
orientation influence performance more noticeably than slightly lesser degrees of market
orientation. Gauzente (2001:5) argues that “traditional quantitative models may not be robust
enough to take time into consideration”. Again, the limitations of the received view are noted,
with the introduction of qualitative research again suggested as a means of advancing market
orientation research.
Secondly, the age of the firm, nature and rate of development or change within, may be
established factors, in terms of routines and structures, institutionalised through its history
(Boeker 1989). As such, the historical presence of a dominant strategy or the overbearing
influence of small firm owner/s on firm culture (Pelham and Wilson 1996) may facilitate or
hinder market-oriented behaviours. Gauzente (2001) argues the relationship between firm age
and market orientation is difficult to assess. Again the inference is that in the absence of
fieldwork, such effects (inflexible structures and routines versus adaptability and renewal
qualities) remain conspicuously absent from mainstream market orientation literature.
Lastly, the firm’s history provides potential evidence as to the moment of entry into an
industry. The notion is that later entry into a market may require increased levels of
market-oriented behaviours to achieve a sustainable position (Gauzente 2001). That is, the events that
surround the incorporation of an entity possibly impact the formation and reliance on a
market-oriented based culture. The contribution of Gauzente (2001) provides motivation for a
new lens through which to conceptualise and examine the market orientation construct.
So far this paper has questioned the appropriateness of existing research methods to
has been on problematic issues rather than alternative solutions to the measurement of market
orientation. It is suggested an over reliance upon quantitative methods has largely limited
research to identifying the relative degree of market orientation for a specific entity within a
sample at the expense of expanding our understanding of the construct. This has been further
compounded by the exclusion of other informants (employees, customers and suppliers)
through whom survey data can be compared and validated (triangulation).
As such, current market orientation research methods ignore contemporary research
methods within the strategic management literature concerning the measurement of intangible
firm resources (Rouse and Daellenbach 1999). External research (the received view) is less
capable of observing, understanding and explaining the elements/ behaviours and
organisational processes that comprise a firm’s market orientation, for example the concept of
organisational learning. Although posited to be the vital process through which market
intelligence is converted to firm knowledge (Slater and Narver 1998), such capabilities are
not examined by current market orientation measures. Other factors associated with the
concept of time also raise doubts on current research methods. In light of the previous
discussion, there appears a need to develop new research methods for the conceptualisation,
measurement, and therefore understanding of the market orientation construct.
Questioning yesterday’s inspiration to see tomorrow’s possibilities
That the most fundamental of marketing theories may be of limited use to marketing
practitioners should be of great concern to marketing scholars. The adage, what does not get
measured, does not get managed (Boshoff, 1999), provides fuel to the arguments of
Henderson (1998) that a market orientation ‘prescription’ cannot be a credible remedy for
increased business performance. As a fundamental tenet of the discipline of marketing, the
market orientation construct and related construct, the marketing concept, occupy prominent
positioning within marketing texts. Yet despite its ‘textbook’ and ‘cornerstone’ status within
the discipline of marketing, no one, unified and unambiguous definition of market orientation
and their derivatives, many questions remain unanswered. Gable (1995) issued a challenge to
researchers of market orientation to identify it, isolate it, explain it, and to demonstrate its
value as an area for future research. To date, little progress appears to have been made to rise
to this challenge. Consequently, acceptance of its presence, properties and influence while
implicitly taken for granted, remain open to continued debate.
An example of such debate is the assumed linear relationship between gathering
intelligence (understanding customer needs and external threats/ opportunities), applying
marketing skills and satisfying customer needs to underwrite firm performance posited by
most marketing texts (Kotler 1997). On the basis of such assumptions, it is the antecedents
and consequences of a market orientation that have remained the focus of much research. The
recent work of Wrenn (1997) suggests that in reality an absence of customer needs (expressed
or latent) may result in technologies, not needs, driving firm change. That there may be
non-linear processes supportive of a market orientation challenges the existing conceptualisation
of the market orientation construct. Such views reinforce the need to reach a unified definition
that enables the organisational processes and behaviours that support a market orientation to
be identified, aligned, validated and accepted.
Market orientation: seeing is believing
The qualitative case study approach potentially offers researchers a means through
which to respond to the challenge of Gable (1995). The above discussion has raised many
issues that current quantitative research methods fail to adequately solve. Researchers
desirous of explaining the complex social interactions, organisational processes, time and firm
specific factors, inherent to the market orientation construct, must go beyond statistical
generalizations to expand and advance existing theory (Hyde 2000). The case study approach
enables the researcher to capture a more complete and contextual portrayal of market
orientation and broaden the sources of data collection through the process of triangulation
firm, its employees, customers and suppliers) to collectively move this fundamental
marketing theory forward.
Gummesson (2001:34-35) states that case study research is “used to arrive at specific
or general conclusions about certain phenomena, recognizing the multitude of variables,
complex interrelations and ambiguities of social life". It is through the process of ‘being
there’ that the researcher is able to be emersed in an environment rich in data that has time
and space dimensions. Through the presentation of case studies, researchers can present
research findings in a stimulating manner, gaining increased dissemination and understanding
through ‘narrative styles’ of representation (Gummesson 2001).
With reference to Gable’s (1995) desired research agenda, the remainder of this paper
concludes by suggesting three case study approaches appropriate to advancing market
orientation theory. Firstly, pattern matching (identify market orientation), secondly, the
industrial networks approach (to isolate and explain market orientation), and lastly, action
research (to demonstrate the value of future market orientation research).
Pattern matching
Pattern matching essentially is an attempt to relate two patterns, one theoretical and one
observed to establish construct validity (Trochim 1985). It is essential to establish that no
other plausible alternative theories account for the observed patterns. To define market
orientation, conceptual patterns (theoretical patterns) must be conceived that are not merely
ambiguous representations of the marketing concept (Gable 1995).
At the heart of this paper is a concern regarding the relationship between the properties
of market orientation and the process through which the construct validity and
conceptualisation of the construct market orientation can be examined. The discussion thus
far has suggested several threats to construct validity, threats that can be summarised with
reference to Cook and Campbell’s (1979) list of threats. Through exclusion of causal and
contingent factors upon which the construct’s operationalization is dependent (internal
an inadequate preoperational explication. That is, presently the literature’s definition of
market orientation is at best ambiguous.
Consequently, the subsequent received view and its narrow focus is open to criticism of
mono-method bias (partial measurement) for not capturing the full breadth of the construct.
Also, the literature fails to isolate, and/or distinguish the relationship between organizational
learning and market orientation constructs leaving open the possibility of interactions with
different treatments. Therefore, predicting the value and influence of a market orientation
may be difficult, if not impossible, without separating the non-overlapping properties of the
two constructs. Pattern matching therefore provides a means of examining existing market
orientation measures and conceptualisation. Interestingly, it would enable the inclusion of the
firm, their employees, customers, and suppliers in a process of conceptual mapping (Bigne,
Aldas-Manzano, Kuster and Vila 2002) through which opinions from all parties directly
related to the conceptualization process are collected. Such unique data would be invaluable
in determining appropriate research methods through which market orientation could be
measured.
Industrial network approach
The industrial network approach has traditionally preferred qualitative, cased-based
methods to capture the interdependence and dynamic aspects of dyadic interactions between
network actors (Galaskiewicz 1996). Through the establishment of boundaries within which
actors (firms, their employees, customers and suppliers) interact, a ‘frame’ can be used to
observe organizational and individual learning behaviours. Such a research approach provides
a clearer window of observation to distinguish between adaptive and generative learning
processes, a critical research issue to developing market orientation theory (Slater and Narver
1995).
It is proposed that observable data related to how, when and why firms gather
information from which to develop knowledge about customers and their markets remains
measurement. Tracing the flows of social information provides a unique means of isolating a
firm’s market orientation and identifying the importance of the actors upon which a firm’s
knowledge development is critical. The industrial networks approach enables identification of
‘issue-based nets’ (Araujo and Brito 1998; Brito 1999) through which an holistic perspective
is gained from understanding the complexity of industrial systems driven by the presence of
collective interests.
Such an approach would enable researchers to isolate common problems, reliances and
resource exchanges across actors, as well as methods of dealing with issues regarding how
their actions influence the exchange of resources vis-à-vis their strategies and market
positioning. As such, this approach potentially introduces significant triangulation of data,
adding much rigor to research findings.
Action research
The last approach posited is action research. Action research provides for intensive
interaction with respondents (clients) from which new insights may support the reconstruction
of our market realities (Gronhaug and Olson 1999). Gummesson (2001:37) claims that such a
method provides “access to reality, far superior to that of any other type of data collection
method”, and that with reference to the received view, “the survey stands out as deprived of
access to data”.
Given the supposed rareness of market orientation (Narver and Slater 1990), action
research constitutes an opportunity to learn through participating in the process of
organizational change (Melrose 2001). That firms should be more rather than less market
oriented but are not widely observed to be provides action research with a problem solving
opportunity through which a deeper understanding of the situation can be achieved. Action
research incorporates a longitudinal perspective through which learning processes can be
observed, analysed and reflected upon. As such, this approach provides a means through
regarding the future value of market orientation research can be made from a perspective
separate to that of the received view.
Conclusion
The three approaches introduced demonstrate the value of qualitative methods to
enhance the traditional quantitative received view. Since the original works of Kohli and
Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990), the discipline of marketing has failed to
materialise the benefits of market orientation any more than the previous decades of
promoting the marketing concept. This paper does not argue that market orientation should be
measured through case study methods, but rather that case study research is necessary to
enhance the researcher’s understanding of the construct. That Gable’s (1995) challenge is
still present should represent a priority to researchers in this area to revisit the very
List of References
Anderson, A.B., A. Basilevsky, and D. P. J. Hum. 1983. “Measurement: Theory and
Techniques”. In The Handbook Of Survey Research. Eds. P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright and A. B. Anderson. New York: Academic Press.
Andrews, K. 1971. The Concept Of Corporate Strategy. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Ansoff, H.I. 1965. Corporate Strategy: An Analytical Approach to Business Policy Growth
and Expansions. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bain, J. 1968. Industrial Organization. Wiley, New York.
Baker, W.E., and J M. Sinkula. 2002. “Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Orientation: Delving into the Organization’s Black Box.” Journal of Market-Focused
Management 5: 5-23.
Barney, J. 1986. “Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?” Academy of Management Review 11: 656-665.
Bigne, J.E., J. Aldas-Manzano, I. Kuster, and N. Vila. 2002. “The Concept Mapping
Approach in Marketing: An Application in the Travel Agencies Sector.” Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal 5: 87-95.
Boeker, W. 1989. “The Development and Institutionalization of Subunit Power in Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (September): 388-410.
Boshoff, C. 1999. “RECOVSAT: An Instrument to Measure Satisfaction with Transaction-Specific Service Recovery.” Journal of Service Research 1: 236-49.
Bowen, H., and Wiersema, M.1999. “Matching Method To Paradigm In Strategy Research: Limitations Of Cross-Sectional Analysis And Some Methodological Alternatives.” Strategic
Management Journal 20: 625-636.
Caruana, A. 1999. “An Assessment of the Dimensions and The Stability of Items in the MARKOR Scale.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 17: 248-253.
Churchill, G.A. 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.
Journal of Marketing 16 (February): 64-73.
Cohen, W.M., and D. A. Levinthal. 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128-152.
Cook, T.D., and D. T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for
Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.
Day, G.S. 1994. The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organisations. Journal of Marketing 58
(October): 37-52.
Deshpandé, R., and J. U. Farley. 1997. Measuring Market Orientation: Generalization and Synthesis. Journal of Market-Focused Management 2: 213-232.
Deshpandé, R., J. U. Farley, and F. Webster. 1993. “Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis.” Journal of Marketing 57
(January): 23-37.
Dickson, P.R. 1996. “The Static and Dynamic Mechanics of Competition: A Comment on Hunt and Morgan’s Comparative Advantage Theory.” Journal of Marketing 60 (October): 102-106.
Dierickx, I., and K. Cool. 1989. “Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage.” Management Science 35: 1504-1513.
Dreher, A. 1994. “Marketing orientation: How to Grasp the Phenomenon.” Perspectives on
Marketing Management. Eds M. J. Baker. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Farrell, M.A., and E.Oczkowski. 1997. “An analysis of the MKTOR and MARKOR measures of market orientation: An Australian perspective.” Marketing Bulletin 8: 30-40.
Gable, T.G. 1995. “Market orientation: theoretical and methodological concerns.” In
Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Summer Educators’ Conference Eds. B.
B. Stern and G. M. Zinkham. Chicago II: American Marketing Association, pp.368-375.
Galaskiewicz, J. 1996. “The new network analysis and its application to organizational theory and behavior.” In Networks In Marketing. Ed. D. Iacobucci. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gauzente, C. 1999. “Comparing market orientation scales: A content analysis.” Marketing Bulletin 10: 76-82.
Gauzente, Claire. 2001. “Why should time be considered in market orientation research?”
Academy of Marketing Science Review 01:
http://www.amsreview.org/amsrev/forum/gauzente01-01.html.
Godfrey, P.C., and C. W. L. Hill. 1995. “The problem of unobservables in strategic management research.” Strategic Management Journal 16: 519-533.
Grant, R. 1996. “Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration.” Organization Science 7: 375-387.
Greenly, G.E. 1995. “Forms of market orientation in UK companies.” Journal of
Management Studies 32: 47-66.
Gronhaug, K., and O. Olson. 1999. “Action research and knowledge creation: merits and challenges.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 2: 6-14.
Gummesson, E. 2001. Are current research approaches in marketing leading us astray? Marketing Theory, v1 (1): 27-48.
Henderson, S. 1998. “No such thing as market orientation – a call for no more papers.”
Management Decision 36: 598-609.
Hoskisson, R.E., M. A. Hitt, W. P. Wan, and D. Yiu. 1999. “Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum.” Journal of Management 25: 417-456.
Hunt, S.H., and R. M. Morgan.1995. “The comparative advantage theory of competition”
Journal of Marketing 59 (April): 1-15.
Hyde, K.F. 2000. “Recognising deductive process in qualitative research.” Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal 3: 82-89.
Jick, T.D. 1979. “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602-611.
Jaworski, B.J., and A. K. Kohli. 1993. “Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences.”
Journal of Marketing 57 (July): 53-70.
Kohli, A.K., and B. J. Jaworski. 1990. “Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial Implications.” Journal of Marketing 54 (April): 1-18.
Kohli, A.K., B. J. Jaworski, and A. Kumar.1993. “A measure of market orientation.” Journal
of Marketing Research 30 (November): 467-477.
Kotler, P. 1997. Marketing Management: The Millennium Edition. Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Langerak, F., and H. R. Commandeur. 1998. “The influence of market orientation on competitive superiority and performance of industrial business.” Proceedings of the 27th
EMAC Conference 3 (May), Stockholm: 91-105.
Melrose, M.J. 2001. “Maximizing the rigor of action research: Why would you want to? How could you?” Field Methods 13: 160-180.
Moriarty, R.T., and J. E. Bateson. 1982. “Exploring complex decision making units: A new approach.” Journal of Marketing 19 (May): 182-191.
Naidu, G.M., and C. L. Narayana. 1991. “How marketing oriented are hospitals in a declining market?” Journal of Health Care Marketing 11 (March): 23-30.
Narver, J.C., and S. F. Slater. 1990. “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability.” Journal of Marketing 54 (October): 20-35.
Narver, J.C., S. F. Slater, and B. Tietje. 1998. “Creating a market orientation.” Journal of
Market-Focused Management 2: 241-255.
Olavrrieta, S., and R. Friedmann. 1999. “Market-oriented culture, knowledge-related
resources, reputational assets and superior performance: a conceptual framework.” Journal of
Strategic Marketing 7: 215-228.
Pelham, A.M. and D. Wilson. 1996. “A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 24: 27-43.
Penrose, E.T. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.
Shapiro, B.P. 1988. “What the hell is market oriented?” Harvard Business Review 66: 119-125.
Reed, R., and R. DeFillippi. 1990. “Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage.” Academy of Management Review 15: 88-102.
Rouse, M.J., and U. S. Daellenbach. 1999. “Rethinking research methods for the resource-based perspective: Isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage.” Strategic
Management Journal 20: 487-494.
Siguaw, J.A., and A. Diamantopoulos. 1995. “Measuring market orientation: some evidence on Narver and Slater’s three-component scale.” Journal of Strategic Marketing 3: 77-88.
Slater. S.F. 2001. “Market orientation at the beginning of a new millennium.” Managing
Service Quality 11: 230-232.
Slater, S.F., and J. C. Narver. 1994. “Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation – performance relationship?” Journal of Marketing 58 (January): 46-55.
Slater, S.F., and J. C. Narver. 1995. “Market orientation and the learning organization.”
Journal of Marketing 58 (July): 63-74.
Slater, S.F., and J. C. Narver. 1998. “Customer-led and market-oriented: Lets not confuse the two.” Strategic Management Journal 19: 1001-1006.
Trochim, W.M.K. 1985. “Pattern matching, validity, and conceptualization in program evaluation.” Evaluation Review 9: 575-604.
Webster, F.E. 1994. “Executing the marketing concept.” Marketing Management 3: 9-16.
Wensley, R. 1995. “A critical review of research in marketing.” British Journal of
Management 6: 63-82.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. “A resource-based view of the firm.” Strategic Management Journal 5: 171-180.
Wrenn, B., S. LaTour, and B. Calder. 1994. “Difference in perceptions of hospital marketing orientation between administrators and marketing officers.” Hospital and Health Services
Administration 39 (Fall): 341-358.
Wrenn, B. 1997. “Reality based market orientation.” In Proceeding of Marketing
Management Association. Chicago, IL: Marketing Management Association and Department
